I am sure that theists will undoubtedly tell you that

"He works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform"

"It is all part of his divine plan"

Or they will react with maniacal fervor :

"IT IS THE END TIMES !"

"The world is being PUNISHED by god for all of it's sinful ways, like Sodom and Gommorah"

or there old standby :

"Who are you to question the word of god ?"

I find it funny that in one of the chapters in the AA book, supposedly this drunk guy was in despair and did not believe that god could cure him of his alcoholism. When suddenly, he heard this booming voice say : "WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THERE IS NO GOD". At this point, the man was instantly cured of alcoholism and never had another drink. (Why do I get the feeling that this is a bullshit story that happens to coincide with the ending paragraph of the We Agnostics chaper ?)

Nothing to see here - same old, same old.

 By judging God (and Christians) and making statements like "God is a jerk", you are imposing a standard of morality that should not exist in an atheistic worldview. If God is not real and the Bible is a lie, then where do morality and ethics come from. You have no basis for claiming that something is right or wrong, since you (if you're an atheist) deny the God who created moral absolutes.

So where is your basis? What is your reasoning for judging something to be right or wrong? It certainly cannot come from "moral relativism", because in that case, your opinion of something would be no better than someone else's opinion. Moral relativism is arbitrary and can change.

I know that I cannot force you, or anyone else, to believe what I believe to be true. But I trust that God will soften your heart and open your eyes to the truths of His infallible Word.

I always like to see the "Atheists can't be moral" argument when it is shown that atheists and Christians are more moral than God.

My basis for morality is to do the things that minimize harm to all people. Your morals are probably close to that. God's morality (as seen in the Bible) is to minimize harm only to those people that he had "chosen" (and even that was only on condition that they kissed his butt)

So how is God's morality better than yours or mine again?

I trust your 'honest' inquiry will open your eyes to the truths (See: Article):

Transitional fossils are strongly suggestive of Evolution since they have characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it. Please note, When Darwin first published his "Origin of Species" he stressed that the lack of transitional fossils was the most formidable obstacle to his theory. At that time very little was known about the fossil record and complaints that there were a lack of any transitional fossils were understandable. Since that time, despite the rarity of fossilization, literally dozens of excellent examples have surfaced starting with the discovery of Archaeopteryx in the Solnhofen area of Germany just two years after "Origin" was published.
Since transitional fossils are anathema to YEC dogma, they have desperately sought to redefine the term to suit their own purposes or they merely outright deny their existence. An example of the later being the Archaeopteryx, which some YEC assert isn't a transitional between reptile and bird at all, but is instead a true bird despite the fact that it clearly possesses characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds don't have (www.enchantedlearning.com/agifs/Archaeopteryx_bw.GIF).
Often you hear a YEC contend that transitional fossils don't exist because nobody can prove the fossil in question is a direct ancestor of any later creature. While this is true to an extent, even if a transitional fossil is a side-branch it still demonstrates that creatures with intermediate characteristics did exist, and thus it is highly probable that a similar creature existed that was an ancestor of a later species. Again, the archaeopteryx serves as an example since science isn't sure whether or not they were ancestors of modern birds or a side-branch that serves to illustrate the changes taking place at that time. YEC advocates simply take it too far in demanding a record of every single creature in the chain before we can say that something is an ancestor of something else. Such "absolute proof" is incredibly unrealistic considering the nature of the fossil record itself. Then there are the YECs that stubbornly see gaps everywhere. As soon as a transitional fossil between two groups of creatures is found they spring into action demanding intermediaries between the intermediaries. And if such fossils are also discovered are they satisfied? No. These critics now demand intermediaries between the newly discovered intermediaries. It's a no-win situation. When more links in the chain are found they only see a chain with more holes. More can be learned about Archaeopteryx at
All About Archaeopteryx (www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html) and at the
Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx) for Archaeopteryx.
"Archie" is far from the only example of a transitional fossil that has been dug up over the years. Very recently up in Canada there was the spectacular discovery of a transitional form between lobe-finned fish and early tetrapods dating back 375 million years. Called Tiktaalik, it is an example of Fish to Amphibian evolution demonstrating, among other things, the change from fin to limb. To learn more about this fascinating extinct creature at, the Tiktaalik roseae: Home (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/).
The evolution of whales and other cetaceans from land animals has long been derided by YECs (www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej10_1.jpg) as the ultimate example of evolutionary nonsense. Critics used the fact that a fossil record was lacking to "prove" that there are no such thing as transitional fossils. This situation changed dramatically when an entire slew of whale fossils of several transitional species surfaced, primarily in Pakistan, since the 1990s. More information can be found at the Wikipedia page on the
Evolution of cetaceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales)
There are many other examples of transitional fossils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils). Probably two of the best sources available on the internet for further information include CC200: Transitional fossils (www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html) and the famous
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) by Kathleen Hunt.

Considering the number of new transitional fossils being uncovered, especially in recent years, don't you YECs think it might be time to quit hoisting your flag on this particular battlefield?
Researchers have taken a new look at the fossilized remains of the long extinct arachnid, Attercopus fimbriunguis, that lived 386 mya (Middle Devonian) and had been interpreted in 1989 as being the oldest known spider. They have now concluded that instead of being the oldest spider it is actually a more primitive ancestor of web-spinning spiders. This means that the oldest "true" spider may have arrived 80 million years later than previously thought.

The reason for the reinterpretation is that new analysis has revealed that the parts of the 7mm (0.27”) long Attercopus that had been described as spinnerets (the external, modified appendages that allow web-spinning) weren’t actually spinnerets after all.

While this proto-spider could still produce silk, it wasn’t in strands like modern spiders, but in the form of broad sheets excreted from spigots arranged along the edges of the segmented plates that made up the underside of the creature’s abdomen. What appeared to be a tubular spinneret was in fact a rolled-up or folded sheet of cuticle (the animals' external skeletal material).

The team that made the reassessment, led by Paul Seldon, director and the Gulf-Hedberg Distinguished Professor of Invertebrate Paleontology of the Paleontological Institute at the Biodiversity Institute at the University of Kansas, think that Attercopus could have used the sheets for a variety of purposes including to line burrows, protect eggs, have sex, make homing trails and possibly even subdue prey, but that web-making wasn’t one of them because of the inflexibility of the spigots.

Further, they found that Attercopus, unlike any known spider, possessed a long, segmented, flagellum-like tail similar to that seen on a whip scorpion that is commonly seen on some of the spider’s more primitive relatives.

And aside from having tails and spinning silk from broad, segmented plates, the team discovered that Attercopus also seem to lack venom glands and openings on the fang of the chelicerae previously thought to be associated with venom glands was the result of a misinterpretation.

It was these characteristics that got Attercopus moved into the extinct order of arachnids thought to be close to the origins of spiders named Uraraneida.

"The thing that had been called the oldest known spider we have now shown is in fact more primitive than a true spider," Professor William Selden, the Trinkle Professor of Biology at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, and co-author of the report said.

“We think these ‘tailed spiders’ represent an entirely new kind of animal, not known before from living or fossil examples,” observed Shear. “They were more primitive than spiders in many ways, and may be spider ancestors,” he added, “This new information also allows us to reinterpret other fossils once thought to be spiders, and this evidence suggests these Uraraneida, or pre-spiders, existed for more than 100 million years, living alongside real spiders, which evolved later.”

Now, the oldest known "true spiders,” are members of the Mesothelae, a primitive group now represented only by the Liphistiidae, and dates from the Late Carboniferous period that ended roughly 300 mya, though Professor Selden says that true spiders could have existed earlier but haven’t been discovered.

What prompted the reinterpretation of Attercopus was the discovery of an additional specimen since the original was uncovered in Gilboa, in upstate New York almost two decades ago. A slightly younger (374 myo) example with tail still attached to the abdomen, was discovered in nearby South Mountain, New York.

The existence of such a tail is also supported by the more recently discovered Permarachne genus from a Permian deposit in Russia, which was also originally and inaccurately described as a spider and whose tail was originally described as an "elongated spinneret".

Interestingly, as late as July of this year Shear and Sheldon have been describing Attercopus as having spinnerets: Fossil evidence for the origin of spider spinnerets (http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2088/version/1). The oldest silk-producing spigots are known from the Middle Devonian of Gilboa, New York2. This specimen, slide 334.1b.AR34 (See:npre20082002-.PDF; Nature). The findings of the new research were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
(source Rouge06 in the year 2009).

The code of Hammurabi is at least 700 years older than the supposed date of the Big Ten of Exodus yet is more mature and rational than them. Whoever invented the Big Ten was a savage in comparison to Hammurabi. Yet believers come along and claim out of their own profound ignorance that "morality" can only come from the savage composer of the Big Ten.

If that is not good enough for you there are some sets of Egyptian laws older than the Code that exhibit the same morality and ethics and also make the Big Ten look primitive.

You believers are clearly WRONG in your assertion of the origin of morality. Which is hardly surprising as you are wrong in nearly everything.

The "drunk guy" that you are referring to is Bill Wilson, co founder of AA. He also wrote the book that the story is in. It is a very fascinating read. AA is a religion that screams and proclaims that it is not a religion. Usually people aren't exposed to AA or the literature with out a reason. Have you read the book? What do you think about it? Are you in the Program?